This could be subjective perceptions. 'I should live like this.' A matter of individual taste. Or an objective claim, 'This way of making decisions is best' which can be measured if particular desired outcomes specified or argued for using reason & evidence.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Questions of how to live, and questions of taste, are not just subjective. Opposing the subjective and the objective is a philosophical mistake. Myths and narratives are meaningful precisely because they involve questions that exceed subjectivity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
That's why I said it could be both. Where the claim is objective, it can be measured. Where it is subjective, it can't. "How should I live' can have a subjective element - I should be a writer - and an objective claim - by following the doctrines of the Catholic church.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
How should I live in this tribe? Should I make or use arrows? If so, how? Myths are relevant precisely because they are ways of knowing answers to such questions. In that sense, the myth IS evidence, and the knowledge provided is real, that is, true. But it's not scientific.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
If it provides evidence of how to make arrows and whether this is a good idea - eg like gun stats showing you're four times more likely to be killed by one if you own one - and what ways of living in tribes work best, it is scientific. If it doesn't, it isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then your definition of "scientific" is something that includes knowledge that exists prior to the invention of science, doesn't it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
Is there a prior to the invention of science? Humans have been testing things and using the evidence provided for as long as we existed. 'Scire' - to know as a fact. However, we can also apply science to very old data. Not sure what the relevance of this tweet is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ComplaintStick
It doesn't matter much whether there was a word for making a decision based on evidence - I won't eat that because it makes people sick - or based on myth - I won't eat that because God says it is unclean, truth claims are involved. The former cld be true. The latter unlikely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
OK so there's a myth one of whose lessons is: don't eat this thing because you will become sick. Is that myth telling you something meaningful or something true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ComplaintStick
We could not know if it was true without testing it. For the Hare Krishnas it is onions and garlic. For the ancient Hebrews, it was pork & shellfish. The former seems groundless. The latter can now be understood in relation to food poisoning & dealt with via refrigeration.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
People may or may not find dietary restrictions meaningful and this could relate to where they fall on the moral foundations - if they have strong sanctity/degradation intuitions, they could be more inclined to favor these rules regardless of evidence.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.